And the principle is that one who admits that he is liable to pay a fine is exempt. Since the man would not have been liable to pay even if he had admitted his guilt, his denial of guilt is not considered a denial of monetary liability, and even if he swears falsely that he is not liable, he still does not become liable to bring an offering. And the Rabbis hold that when the father claims payment in court, it is the compensation for the humiliation and degradation that he claims. His main focus is not on the fine, and therefore the denial refers to a regular monetary claim.
במאי קא מיפלגי? אמר רב פפא, רבי שמעון סבר: לא שביק איניש מידי דקיץ, ותבע מידי דלא קיץ. ורבנן סברי: לא שביק איניש מידי דכי מודי ביה לא מיפטר, ותבע מידי דכי מודה ביה מיפטר.
The Talmud asks: If this explanation is correct, with regard to what do the tanna’im disagree? Rav Pappa said: R' Shimon holds that a person does not leave aside something that is fixed, e.g., a fine, and claim something that is not fixed, e.g., the compensation for humiliation and degradation, which need to be assessed by the court. Consequently, a claim of rape is essentially a demand for the fine. And conversely, the Rabbis hold that a person does not leave aside something that, if the defendant admits to it, he is not exempt from payment, e.g., humiliation and degradation, and claim something that, if the defendant admits to it, he is exempt from payment. Consequently, they contend that the lawsuit is mainly focused on the compensation for the humiliation and degradation.
בעא מיניה רבי אבינא מרב ששת: בת הניזונת מן האחין — מעשה ידיה למי?
§ R' Avina raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to a daughter who is sustained by her brothers, i.e., an orphan whose brothers provide her with her sustenance from their father’s estate, in accordance with the stipulation in the marriage contract between their parents that requires the father to pay for his daughter’s sustenance from his property, to whom do her earnings belong?